IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v45y1997i4p605-620.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Economic evaluation in support of national health policy: The case of the Netherlands

Author

Listed:
  • Elsinga, Einte
  • Rutten, Frans F. H.

Abstract

This article focuses on economic evaluation as an instrument to support national health policy in the Netherlands. National health policy concerns decision-making on which technologies may enter the health care market, which health care services are included in the package of health care benefits and under what conditions, and what the geographical distribution of medical services and facilities should be. Regarding the latter two issues in particular, the actual and potential role of economic evaluation in health policy is discussed. From the Dutch experience we can learn that a close cooperation between researchers and policy-makers helps to enlarge the impact of economic appraisal on policy-making and that incorporation of the right (financial) incentives is vital to the use of economic appraisal in health care decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Elsinga, Einte & Rutten, Frans F. H., 1997. "Economic evaluation in support of national health policy: The case of the Netherlands," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 605-620, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:4:p:605-620
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(96)00400-5
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dimitrios Rovithis & Lycurgus Liaropoulos, 2008. "The CHESME Health Economic Evaluations Database (CHESME HEED) project," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 9(2), pages 99-101, May.
    2. Williams, Iestyn & Bryan, Stirling, 2007. "Understanding the limited impact of economic evaluation in health care resource allocation: A conceptual framework," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(1), pages 135-143, January.
    3. Lai, Taavi & Habicht, Jarno & Reinap, Marge & Chisholm, Dan & Baltussen, Rob, 2007. "Costs, health effects and cost-effectiveness of alcohol and tobacco control strategies in Estonia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 75-88, November.
    4. Jeanne Mandelblatt & Clyde Schechter & David Levy & Ann Zauber & Yaojen Chang & Ruth Etzioni, 2012. "Building Better Models," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 32(5), pages 656-659, September.
    5. Al, Maiwenn J. & Feenstra, Talitha & Brouwer, Werner B. F., 2004. "Decision makers' views on health care objectives and budget constraints: results from a pilot study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 33-48, October.
    6. Hoffmann, Christiane AU -, 2000. "The influence of economic evaluation studies on decision making.: A European survey," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 179-192, July.
    7. Elly Stolk & Frans Rutten, 2005. "The “Health Benefit Basket” in The Netherlands," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 53-57, November.
    8. Gerard, Karen & Smoker, Irenie & Seymour, Janelle, 1999. "Raising the quality of cost-utility analyses: lessons learnt and still to learn," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(3), pages 217-238, March.
    9. Cheung, Kei Long & Evers, Silvia M.A.A. & Hiligsmann, Mickaël & Vokó, Zoltán & Pokhrel, Subhash & Jones, Teresa & Muñoz, Celia & Wolfenstetter, Silke B. & Józwiak-Hagymásy, Judit & de Vries, Hein, 2016. "Understanding the stakeholders’ intention to use economic decision-support tools: A cross-sectional study with the tobacco return on investment tool," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(1), pages 46-54.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:45:y:1997:i:4:p:605-620. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.